Saturday, October 9, 2010

Aub's World

In Isaac Asimov’s 1958 futuristic short story “The Feeling of Power,” Myron Aub is a technician who rediscovers arithmetic. Aub’s future world is one dominated by computers which do all the number crunching and people who not only are mathematically-challenged but, more importantly, don’t see the point. What good is math anyway? Today evolution has had a similar effect on our thinking. Just as computers can dull our mathematical skills, evolution dulls our critical thinking skills.

According to evolutionists everything from the quasars and galaxies in the cosmos to the millions of biological marvels on earth are a fluke. They all just happened to happen. And though evolutionists don’t know how all this happened, they know for certain that it happened. And their certainty justifies oppression of skepticism. They suppress any intellectual curiosity that doubts their dogma with lawsuits and black lists.

Modern evolutionary thought traces back to the early days of science in the seventeenth century. Over the centuries it gained strength and today it dominates the sciences and beyond. As the evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin proclaimed, evolution is much more than merely a theory, system or hypothesis:

It is much more—it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow—this is what evolution is.

That sort of dogma is frightening. But with evolutionists, there can be no alternative. The world must have evolved naturally. Particular hypotheses may come and go, but naturalism cannot be false.

In a word evolution has created an atmosphere of anti-intellectualism. And as de Chardin forecast, evolutionary dogma has spread far beyond science. Not only does evolutionary thought pervade academia in general, but the culture at large as well. From journalism and education to public policy and law, evolution is the gatekeeper. Deep thoughts that doubt evolution’s dogma are not allowed.

This is nowhere more evident than in the various court rulings on the teaching of origins in our public schools. The most recent significant ruling was in 2005 when federal judge John Jones ruled that Intelligent Design could not be taught in Dover, Pennsylvania public schools. As with the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, the particular ruling in Dover was less important than the underlying message. In the Scopes Monkey Trial John Scopes was found guilty of teaching evolution, and in the Dover trial the School Board was instructed not to teach ID.

These rulings were not controversial or of lasting importance. Of course Scopes was guilty of teaching evolution, and of course the School Board was guilty of “breathtaking inanity” as Judge Jones concluded.

What was important about the Dover trial, like the Scopes Monkey Trial, was the underlying anti intellectualism that each advanced. Both trials were specifically targeted and used by the ACLU and evolutionists to promote their naturalistic agenda. As Judge Jones wrote, science limits itself to “natural explanations about the natural world.” [66-7] What Jones apparently failed to realize is no one disagrees with that limitation. Of course science must limit itself to natural explanations about the natural world. But what is the “natural world?”

Judge Jones apparently never asked himself that question and instead was swayed by the ACLU’s reasoning. ID, wrote Jones, “takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural.” [66-7]

It is astonishing that such a silly canard could be seriously set forth as a characterization of ID. It does, of course, no such thing. Indeed, Jones and the ACLU not only mischaracterize ID, but they evade the crucial issue. The Dover opinion makes the circular assertion that phenomena are natural and so therefore ought to be explained by naturalistic causes. Of course natural phenomena ought to be explained by naturalistic causes, but how do we know if a phenomenon is natural? How do we know that human consciousness arose by strictly natural causes? We don’t, of course.

There are different ways to handle this conundrum. ID is only one approach and certainly can be criticized. But evolutionists have not even begun to reckon with the problem seriously. Instead they evade the deep issue altogether and when asked simply lay the blame with ID.

Unfortunately, rather than transcend evolution’s low-brow critiques, the Dover decision joins right in. Yes, ID should not have been taught as Jones rightly ruled, but that was inconsequential. I was not in favor of teaching ID long before the Dover trial, and I knew no one who was. But the message from Dover was about much more than just teaching ID. Evolution’s religious dogma took another step further into our constitutional jurisprudence.

The Dover trial’s anti intellectualism will breed more of the same, just as did the Scopes Monkey Trial. Indeed, when asked about his education for the Dover case, Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.” That is as astonishing as it is frightening. How could a federal judge be so profoundly naïve? It would be like saying I understand the general theme of lung cancer because I’ve seen a Phillip Morris video. Like a trojan horse, evolution’s anti intellectualism has gone viral. It is now widely accepted and even federal judges take it as normative. Like Myron Aub rediscovering basic arithmetic, we need to rediscover basic critical thinking skills.

161 comments:

The Dover trial’s anti intellectualism will breed more of the same, just as did the Scopes Monkey Trial. Indeed, when asked about his education for the Dover case, Jones explained that “I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.” That is as astonishing as it is frightening. How could a federal judge be so profoundly naïve? It would be like saying I understand the general theme of lung cancer because I’ve seen a Phillip Morris video.

Judges don't necessarily come to cases with a full background on the issues to be presented. That's why we have trials. You might want to read Jones' decision, which shows that he learned a great deal during the trial from the prosecution's case and from the testimony and pre-trial behavior of the defendants and their "expert" witnesses, such as Michael Behe.

According to evolutionists everything from the quasars and galaxies in the cosmos to the millions of biological marvels on earth are a fluke. They all just happened to happen.

I suspect that cosmologists would be amused to learn that they are being called “evolutionists” and that they are wasting their lives analyzing “flukes.”

And though evolutionists don’t know how all this happened, they know for certain that it happened.

Although we can be reasonably confident that there was a past, we surely don’t know how it all happened. That’s an ongoing inquiry. What are you certain about concerning the past?

And their certainty justifies oppression of skepticism. They suppress any intellectual curiosity that doubts their dogma with lawsuits and black lists.

It’s a free country, last time I looked. Do you have intellectual curiosity, Hunter? Has it been suppressed? Is your blog being censored?

Teilhard de Chardin proclaimed, evolution is much more than merely a theory, system or hypothesis:

“It is much more—it is a general postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must henceforward bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow—this is what evolution is.”

That sort of dogma is frightening.

Take some deep breaths and relax. Few people take Chardin seriously. As Peter Medawar wrote in a review of The Phenomenon of Man:

“It is a book widely held to be of the utmost profundity and significance; it created something like a sensation upon its publication in France, and some reviewers hereabouts called it the Book of the Year --- one, the Book of the Century. Yet the greater part of it, I shall show, is nonsense, tricked out with a variety of metaphysical conceits, and its author can be excused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself. The Phenomenon of Man cannot be read without a feeling of suffocation, a gasping and flailing around for sense. There is an argument in it, to be sure --- a feeble argument, abominably expressed --- and this I shall expound in due course; but consider first the style, because it is the style that creates the illusion of content, and which is a cause as well as merely a symptom of Teilhard's alarming apocalyptic seizures.”

Hunter's quote mine of Judge Jones referring to Inherit the Wind was taken from a 2008 interview with Jane Gitschier:

"Gitschier: Tell us about your education for this case. Although you hadn't heard of ID, you likely had heard of creationism or creation science. Had this been a field that you followed at all?

Jones: No, not other than popular culture. When I went to law school in the late '70s, I followed the progression of cases that we talked about before. I understood the general theme. I'd seen Inherit the Wind.

Gitschier: So now it's on your docket, and you must have been curious. Did you Google intelligent design?

Jones: No. I got what I needed in the context of the case. And it was the monster on my docket.

To your question: I think laypersons apprehend that when we get a case, it's incumbent upon us to go into an intensive study mode to learn everything about it. Actually that is the wrong thing to do. The analogy is that when I have a jury trial in front of me, I always instruct jurors, particularly in this day and age when you can Google anything, not to do that. I don't want you to do any research or investigation. Everything you need to decide this case you'll get within the corners of this courtroom.

So it is with me. And I knew that by the time the case went to trial and during the trial, that I would get expert reports."

Oh and if you chumps liked the Dover fiasco, then just wait until my youngest gets into high school.

By then I will have more than enough ammunition to prove the theory of evolution is

1) Not based on scientific data

2) Atheistic in nature thereby violating the est. clause.

In other words, religion is compatible with modern evolutionary biology (and indeed all of modern science) if the religion is effectively indistinguishable from atheism.1

…

The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.2

…

Evolution is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented.

Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent.3

As the creationists claim, belief in modern evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if the religious view is indistinguishable from atheism.4

‘Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear … There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.’ 5

I think this is an extremely important question. How do you define the word natural or nature ??? Does such a definition include human beings ??? If not, then why are we described as nothing more than a different animal (related through common descent) among other animals yet NOT being included in the definition of natural or nature ???-----

Now on another note. I personally have no take on the politics of this or whether ID should or shouldn't be allowed. However, I do believe science could be done from a neutral platform without referencing either religious dogma.

Having said that though, if "Intelligent Design" crowd had won their court case (and long after years of ACLU appeals and every other wacked out secularist lawsuit & appeal being exhausted) , how would you suggest ID be handled and taught without regard for anyone's person religious interpretation views being interjected into the course ???

"Of course natural phenomena ought to be explained by naturalistic causes, but how do we know if a phenomenon is natural?"

The presumption of methodological naturalism is useful. We don't see the demon did it defense in the courtroom. Why not? So why the common design defense in the classroom?

Failure to consider supernatural alternatives is not religious or atheistic. If I lose a dollar, considering it fell out the last time I opened my wallet is not religious verses the proposition God knocked me out, an angel took it, and I don't remember. Is the latter falsified? No. Is it reasonable? Parsimony matters. Especially to science.

So, if ID won its day in court, what would you teach?

What would an ID curriculum look like (a constructive one that goes beyond pissing on evolution)?

As I've mentioned before, design applied to biology is a failing critique. Design of your style is no longer science, useful, or predictive. From the arguments here, we know the design must absolutely have the appearance of common descent (you'd scream evolution was falsified with any feature otherwise). Common design has to be designed to look like common descent down to the nucleotide level across all organism (see Theobald). Common design must incorporate non-adaptive features to further this appearance. As evolution of new features, speciation, etc., have been directly observed, it must be ongoing, even in lab experiments.

In other words, the design hypothesis now appropriates what the naturalistic investigation of evolution has found, but throws in a 'God did it.' Since it merely reflects the knowledge described by evolution, and evolution is useful, predictive and religion neutral, guess what's going to be used in the lab and taught in the classroom?

According to evolutionists everything from the quasars and galaxies in the cosmos to the millions of biological marvels on earth are a fluke. They all just happened to happen. And though evolutionists don’t know how all this happened, they know for certain that it happened.----------

As Pendant suggested, you are conflting biology with the rest of physical science. Besides that point, its hard ito disagree with the fact that that "it" happened. We are here, are we not? The galaxies and quasars seem to be out there and there appear to be millions of biological marvels.

Just like the red shift of distant galaxies has led "evolutionists" to conclude the big bang, layers of fossilized remains, separated in complexity by time has led other types of "evolutionists" to conclude descent with modification.

We don't know how the big bang happened, we can only see the effects. Likewise, we don't know how evolution happened. There may be some hidden force guided by an intelligence that directs evolution, but we have no evidence for that. Without evidence we are forced to adopt the null hypothesis, that the underlying cause is random.

ID proposes that we are designed. That is why Jones' statement that ID “takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural,” is not a canard. Its the central issue. If the designer is not supernatural than it can be proven. If it can be proven then where is the evidence? It is a powerful statement to propose that there is proof of a designer. Such powerful hypothesese need equally powerful proof. But the onus is on ID, not "evolutionists" to suply the proof.

As someone who grew up and studied in a different country, I have been puzzled by the obsession of American educators (usually in social sciences) with this critical thinking thing. It looked suspiciously like a consolation prize: if you can't come up with ideas of your own, at least you can learn to pick apart ideas of others.

What do you know, those educators are finally starting to figure it out. Michael Roth, "an intellectual historian and president of Wesleyan University," has an essay in the Chronicle of Higher Education where he applies his awesome critical thinking skills to the idea of teaching critical thinking: Beyond critical thinking. An excerpt:

In training our students in the techniques of critical thinking, we may be giving them reasons to remain guarded—which can translate into reasons not to learn. The confident refusal to be affected by those with whom we disagree seems to have infected much of our cultural life: from politics to the press, from siloed academic programs (no matter how multidisciplinary) to warring public intellectuals. As humanities teachers, however, we must find ways for our students to open themselves to the emotional and cognitive power of history and literature that might initially rub them the wrong way, or just seem foreign. Critical thinking is sterile without the capacity for empathy and comprehension that stretches the self.

ID hacks of all sorts, from DI functionaries to "Mike Gene", love critical thinking. This is so funny: critical thinking is a mode of learning that is as far from science as it can be. What a bunch of losers.

===if "Intelligent Design" crowd had won their court case (and long after years of ACLU appeals and every other wacked out secularist lawsuit & appeal being exhausted) , how would you suggest ID be handled and taught without regard for anyone's person religious interpretation views being interjected into the course ??? ===

oleg:As someone who grew up and studied in a different country, I have been puzzled by the obsession of American educators (usually in social sciences) with this critical thinking thing. It looked suspiciously like a consolation prize: if you can't come up with ideas of your own, at least you can learn to pick apart ideas of others.

Critical thinking should allow one to do both.

And what makes Roth correct?

BTW IDists not only pick apart your position we also offer ideas of our own.

t. Cook:Just like the red shift of distant galaxies has led "evolutionists" to conclude the big bang,...

A Priest did that.

We don't know how the big bang happened, we can only see the effects.

Yes but how things came to be the way theu are is a basic question of science.

T. Cook:ID proposes that we are designed. That is why Jones' statement that ID “takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural,” is not a canard.

It is a lie.

ID does not require the supernatural.

All ID experts testified to that fact and Jonesy saw fit to basically call them liars.

Science can (1) investigate all phenomena and restrict itself to naturalism, but in that case it forfeits realism (it is not guaranteed to arrive at true conclusions). Or science can (2) investigate all phenomena and maintain realism, but then it must forfeit method constraints (there is no guarantee that all phenomena obey a particular method, such as MN). Or science can (3) restrict itself to naturalism and maintain realism, but in that case it must forfeit completeness (it is not guaranteed to be able to investigate all phenomena).

I think all three of these approaches are legitimate (though I prefer the 3rd approach). ID's approach is the 2nd. It maintains completeness and realism, but forfeits method constraint.

What is not legitimate, in my view, is to obviate this entire philosophical issue by introducing exogenous religious or metaphysical premises, which are not open to falsification or otherwise scientific analysis.

Such premises dictate and restrict the form of the answer before the science begins, and so underwrite the restriction of method. This is the strategy that evolution uses, with its mandate that science be restricted to naturalism.

Clearly evolution is not legitimate science, and evolutionists failure even to reckon with this issue makes this clear. Evolution could easily rectify the problem by using one of the two strategies available which maintain method restriction (ie, forfeit realism or forfeit completeness), but evolutionists won't even reckon with the problem, much less select a scientifically acceptable philosophy.

I've blogged on this several times and the response of evolutionists is consistently inadequate.

Clearly evolution should not be part of any science curriculum.

Though ID does not commit such an egregious mishandling of science, it also should not be taught in science classes because it represents only one of the three possible approaches, and because I think these questions of the philosophy of science are just that: the philosophy of science. I think introducing students to philosophical issues is a big pedagogical mistake. I think those should come later, for students who have first gained a strong background in science.

One valuable contribution of ID to this issue is its attempt to construct objective means to determine whether a phenomenon can be plausibly described by strictly natural causes. One need not be commited to 2nd approach above (ie, forfeiting naturalism) to see the value of this. But again, I don't see the value of this in a curriculum except perhaps at more advanced levels.

The 'dumbing' down of science actually has a more straightforward answer. A answer of which the mandated teaching of Darwinism in public schools is but a symptom:

The following video is fairly direct in establishing the 'spiritual' link to man's ability to learn new information, in that it shows that the SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test) scores for students showed a steady decline, for seventeen years, from the consistent top, or near the top, spot in the world, after the removal of prayer from the public classroom by the Supreme Court in 1963, while the SAT's for private Christian schools have remained steadily at the top near or at the top in the world:

The Real Reason American Education Has Slipped – David Barton – videohttp://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318930

A lot of people are concerned about the constitutionality of teaching evidence against evolution in public schools because of the establishment clause. The following article by Casey Luskin, who has a law degree, reveals that it is constitutional to teach evidence against evolution in public schools:

Is It Legally Consistent for Darwin Lobbyists to Oppose Advocating, But Advocate Opposing, Intelligent Design in Public Schools? - August 2010http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/08/is_it_legally_consistent_for_d037311.html

This following, excellent, article by Casey Luskin has many references defending ID from both a evidential, and legal, point of view from a pretty nasty 'smear article' written by some Darwinist professors at SMU (Southern Methodist University):

Responding to John Wise's Table Pounding at Southern Methodist University - October 2010http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/responding_to_john_wises_table038841.html

I think Michael Behe does an excellent job, in this following debate, of pointing out that materialistic evolutionists themselves, by their own admission in many cases, are promoting there very own religious viewpoint, Atheism, in public schools, and are thus in fact violating the establishment clause of the constitution:

Cornelius Hunter: What is not legitimate, in my view, is to obviate this entire philosophical issue by introducing exogenous religious or metaphysical premises, which are not open to falsification or otherwise scientific analysis.

That's an argument to not teach any science. In the modern world, that is simply not a tenable position.

Cornelius Hunter: Evolution could easily rectify the problem by using one of the two strategies available which maintain method restriction (ie, forfeit realism or forfeit completeness), but evolutionists won't even reckon with the problem, much less select a scientifically acceptable philosophy.

A methodological definition of science avoids all this philosophical brouhaha. If someone hypothesizes that an angry sky god is hurling lightning bolts at the wicked in the Vale of Tempe below, then we climb Mount Olympus and look.

"I love the part in the preceding video in which Dr. Behe makes the obvious observation that 'to continue to deny design makes you irrational in your thinking and science"

I quite agree. Why don't we teach our children the obvious truth? Evolution is not science but religion, specifically theodicy; and life is intelligently designed. At other times in history, or in other countries there would not be an issue. It is only a society were you have the mistaken belief that you can separate your politics and religion were you end up with a distorted view of reality.

Clearly evolution is not legitimate science, and evolutionists failure even to reckon with this issue makes this clear. Evolution could easily rectify the problem by using one of the two strategies available which maintain method restriction (ie, forfeit realism or forfeit completeness), but evolutionists won't even reckon with the problem, much less select a scientifically acceptable philosophy.

I've blogged on this several times and the response of evolutionists is consistently inadequate.

Sorry CH, but laughing at such goofy new age woo is a completely adequate response.

I've asked you this before but you always refuse to answer: How do you do repeatable science when you have supernatural entities who can change the laws of nature at their whim? How would you build an airplane if some Loki god could double the force of gravity anytime for a lark?

If you think your idea is so white hot, why not write up your method and submit it to the appropriate scientific journals, along with some examples of where you actually had the method work? Is that too much trouble for an idea that if correct would undo everything we've learned about the natural world in the last 500 years?

One could substitute EVOLUTION for global warming or climategate as they are the evil twins of pseudo-science today ...

Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society."Dear Curt:When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. .... I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. ..

How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.

So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. …3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work… This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.Hal"Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, former Chairman; Former member Defense Science Board, chmn of Technology panel; Chairman DSB study on Nuclear Winter...

Zachriel: Generations of scientists have thought they were producing testable hypotheses.

Joe G: Strange that you cannot present one here.

Here's an entire scientific journal, Evolution. A quick search of the journals Nature and Science find thousands of research articles on biological evolution. There are the journals Systematics, Journal of Human Evolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Evolution & Development, Arthropod Sytematics & Phylogeny, etc. Then there's the Biological Journal of the Linnean Society: A Journal of Evolution which published Darwin and Wallace's original paper on evolution.

Such premises dictate and restrict the form of the answer before the science begins, and so underwrite the restriction of method. This is the strategy that evolution uses, with its mandate that science be restricted to naturalism. Clearly evolution is not legitimate science, and evolutionists failure even to reckon with this issue makes this clear. Evolution could easily rectify the problem by using one of the two strategies available which maintain method restriction (ie, forfeit realism or forfeit completeness), but evolutionists won't even reckon with the problem, much less select a scientifically acceptable philosophy. I've blogged on this several times and the response of evolutionists is consistently inadequate. Clearly evolution should not be part of any science curriculum.

Cornelius, what a hoot! Forfeit realism? Wow! Like you mean, "the tooth fairy did it,"? The response of evolutionists (that group of people who maintain evolution is an ideology, i.e., people like yourself, WAD, MB, J.Wells, S. Meyer etc) is inadequate and inconsistent? Not surprising. How can bunch of guys with no hypothesis and absolutely woolly notions of science make any sense of such confused assertion. Scientists of course wouldn't have the time, between writing grants, gui9ding research, publishing, and lecturing for such a nonsensical assertion (The tooth fairy did it!)

As against a few 100 journals and 1000s of scientists throughout the world, we have a guy furiously pounding away at his keyboard behind an alias - JoeG - that these guys are all wrong! We know who is serious!

JoeG/or whoever is teaching his kids creationism - if you and your fellow voters have your way, by the time your children reach high school, they will be taking classes in Chinese/Hindi to apply for cat food salesmen jobs in China and India. That is all this country's students will be good for. already Virginia is the laughing stock of the entire world for kookish clown of an AG suing the distinguished scientist Michael Mann. Lsst years Chemistry Nobelist, Venky Ramakrishnan, left the US many years back for Cambridge University, UK, to pursue his research as facilities were inadequate here. Now with even the politicians turning out to be cranks, the US might see a flight of scientists for China, India, Brazil and Europe etc., where good science is legislated (no creationist nonsense is tolerated) and anthropogenic climate change became settled science years ago. Our pseudoscientific fantasy is the staple of late night shows abroad!

Such premises dictate and restrict the form of the answer before the science begins, and so underwrite the restriction of method. This is the strategy that evolution uses, with its mandate that science be restricted to naturalism. Clearly evolution is not legitimate science, and evolutionists failure even to reckon with this issue makes this clear. Evolution could easily rectify the problem by using one of the two strategies available which maintain method restriction (ie, forfeit realism or forfeit completeness), but evolutionists won't even reckon with the problem, much less select a scientifically acceptable philosophy. I've blogged on this several times and the response of evolutionists is consistently inadequate. Clearly evolution should not be part of any science curriculum.

Cornelius, what a hoot! Forfeit realism? Wow! Like you mean, "the tooth fairy did it,"? The response of evolutionists (that group of people who maintain evolution is an ideology, i.e., people like yourself, WAD, MB, J.Wells, S. Meyer etc) is inadequate and inconsistent? Not surprising. How can bunch of guys with no hypothesis and absolutely woolly notions of science make any sense of such confused assertion. Scientists of course wouldn't have the time, between writing grants, gui9ding research, publishing, and lecturing for such a nonsensical assertion (The tooth fairy did it!)

As against a few 100 journals and 1000s of scientists throughout the world, we have a guy furiously pounding away at his keyboard behind an alias - JoeG - that these guys are all wrong! We know who is serious!

JoeG/or whoever is teaching his kids creationism - if you and your fellow voters have your way, by the time your children reach high school, they will be taking classes in Chinese/Hindi to apply for cat food salesmen jobs in China and India. That is all this country's students will be good for. already Virginia is the laughing stock of the entire world for kookish clown of an AG suing the distinguished scientist Michael Mann. Lsst years Chemistry Nobelist, Venky Ramakrishnan, left the US many years back for Cambridge University, UK, to pursue his research as facilities were inadequate here. Now with even the politicians turning out to be cranks, the US might see a flight of scientists for China, India, Brazil and Europe etc., where good science is legislated (no creationist nonsense is tolerated) and anthropogenic climate change became settled science years ago. Our pseudoscientific fantasy is the staple of late night shows abroad!

Such premises dictate and restrict the form of the answer before the science begins, and so underwrite the restriction of method. This is the strategy that evolution uses, with its mandate that science be restricted to naturalism. Clearly evolution is not legitimate science, and evolutionists failure even to reckon with this issue makes this clear. Evolution could easily rectify the problem by using one of the two strategies available which maintain method restriction (ie, forfeit realism or forfeit completeness), but evolutionists won't even reckon with the problem, much less select a scientifically acceptable philosophy. I've blogged on this several times and the response of evolutionists is consistently inadequate. Clearly evolution should not be part of any science curriculum.

Cornelius, what a hoot! Forfeit realism? Wow! Like you mean, "the tooth fairy did it,"? The response of evolutionists (that group of people who maintain evolution is an ideology, i.e., people like yourself, WAD, MB, J.Wells, S. Meyer etc) is inadequate and inconsistent? Not surprising. How can bunch of guys with no hypothesis and absolutely woolly notions of science make any sense of such confused assertion. Scientists of course wouldn't have the time, between writing grants, gui9ding research, publishing, and lecturing for such a nonsensical assertion (The tooth fairy did it!)

As against a few 100 journals and 1000s of scientists throughout the world, we have a guy furiously pounding away at his keyboard behind an alias - JoeG - that these guys are all wrong! We know who is serious!

JoeG/or whoever is teaching his kids creationism - if you and your fellow voters have your way, by the time your children reach high school, they will be taking classes in Chinese/Hindi to apply for cat food salesmen jobs in China and India. That is all this country's students will be good for. already Virginia is the laughing stock of the entire world for kookish clown of an AG suing the distinguished scientist Michael Mann. Lsst years Chemistry Nobelist, Venky Ramakrishnan, left the US many years back for Cambridge University, UK, to pursue his research as facilities were inadequate here. Now with even the politicians turning out to be cranks, the US might see a flight of scientists for China, India, Brazil and Europe etc., where good science is legislated (no creationist nonsense is tolerated) and anthropogenic climate change became settled science years ago. Our pseudoscientific fantasy is the staple of late night shows abroad!

What is not legitimate, in my view, is to obviate this entire philosophical issue by introducing exogenous religious or metaphysical premises, which are not open to falsification or otherwise scientific analysis.

Such premises dictate and restrict the form of the answer before the science begins, and so underwrite the restriction of method.

You personally think that religious or metaphysical premises are not needed to underwrite restriction of method, if you were sincere when you said “I think all three of these approaches [including approach (1), which restricts science to naturalism] are legitimate…” So it is not pertinent to talk about religious or metaphysical premises at this point in the discussion.

This is the strategy that evolution uses, with its mandate that science be restricted to naturalism.

But that is the strategy that all science uses, so why single out evolutionary biology for criticism? And you did say that restricting science to naturalism is legitimate.

Clearly evolution is not legitimate science, and evolutionists failure even to reckon with this issue makes this clear.

You contradict yourself. Having established that restriction of science to naturalism is legitimate in your eyes, and having stated that evolution mandates restriction to naturalism, it follows that evolution is legitimate science in your own eyes.

Evolution could easily rectify the problem by using one of the two strategies available which maintain method restriction (ie, forfeit realism or forfeit completeness), but evolutionists won't even reckon with the problem, much less select a scientifically acceptable philosophy.

Having forfeited both realism and completeness for stark naked naturalism, evolutionists have already dealt with the problem along lines identical to those taken by all other branches of science, I reckon.

Pedant not getting it or unwilling to acknowledge it boldly without thinking said:

"You contradict yourself. Having established that restriction of science to naturalism is legitimate in your eyes, and having stated that evolution mandates restriction to naturalism, it follows that evolution is legitimate science in your own eyes."=====

Funny, you missed his point entirely, either out of misunderstanding, ignorance, or stubborness. His reasons are for the very same reasons he doesn't want to see science taught through the religious eyes of Creationism or Intelligent Design. Religious thought (and this is where evolution is the mirror image of Creationism & ID) is incapable of being eliminated when it comes to all three. Yes, science should have naturalistic explanations, but you people won't even adhere to what you claim is the foundation of your own dogma, that is pure unadulterated naturalism impirically demonstrated and illustrated using the holiest of scientific rule or law of the "scientific method."

The problem comes from myth manufacture & fable fabrication constantly being inserted where clearly no naturalistic explanation has been obtained. Once again, science should be neutral and free from contamination from both sides, but it's NOT. Creationism & ID it would seem has the underlying need of an unseen God. Evolutionism has need of it's own god called CHANCE (which although denying it is a god) apparently nevertheless is a god of sorts because they attribute all sorts of intelligent brilliance to this mythical blind force beast, yet never once through any experimentation has proven their point about amazing mechanisms coming about through ONLY natural undirected without purpose or intent forces.

Hijacking already existing brilliant sophisticated communications mechanisms and the machinery around it and boldly without proof labling it Evolution is NOT SCIENCE. Show us a solid FOUNDATION of just how all those mechanisms got started in the first place through nothing more than chemicals and physics then we can start to talk evolution.

Your god CHANCE and their GOD of the bible are both invisible and unseen. Both can not be explained through pure naturalism (at least according to the defintion). Both you and they are religious and have need of faith-based reasonings where physical observations are wanting. Instead of acknowledging and answering Cornelius' examples of dishonest faith-based metaphysical explanations where FACTS are lacking, you guys simply make excuses, deflect attention away from the hard questions by New Age philosophying, attacking the bible, then when all else fails you fall back on Thortonian abuse of vulgarities, foul words, and insults and believe this is perfectly acceptable behavior for a so-called mature intellectual who is above everyone else. What more do you want him to do or say ??? Especially in the light of each one of you having your own personal internal mandate that anything Cornelius publishes is wrong before you even attempt read it.

jbeck:JoeG/or whoever is teaching his kids creationism - if you and your fellow voters have your way, by the time your children reach high school, they will be taking classes in Chinese/Hindi to apply for cat food salesmen jobs in China and India.

Having cowards attack me doesn't bother me but it does demonstrate the desperation of your position as all I ask for is a testable hypothesis for your position and instead of producing one all you can do is throw hissy-fits and have multiple evotardgasms.

Zachriel:"Generations of scientists have thought they were producing testable hypotheses. Joe G says they were mistaken. What is the parsimonious explanation?"'troy chimes in:*raises finger* I know! I know!

Both ignore the fact that they still cannot produce ONE testable hypothesis for their position.

With all the alleged literature that allegedly supports their position and all those generations that allegedly produced testable hypotheses you would think they would have a wealth to draw from.

Yet here we are STILL waiting for one evotard to ante up.

Ya see this is what happens when evotards get caught lying- well that happens every time they post....

Joe G: I am asking for a testable hypothesis based on the proposed mechanism of an accumulation of genetic accidents, ie blind, undirected chemical processes.

In other words, you pose a strawman comprised of equivocal terms, then expect that if no one answers your demand, to your satisfaction, that you have won the argument, and the results of generations of scientific work are thereby overthrown.

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. The Theory of Evolution is defined by working scientists in the field, not by your caricature.

You almost have to feel sorry for Joe G. He's a sad, impotent, angry little man who is frightened and threatened by the science he doesn't understand. Now that he got laid off from his appliance repair job, the only way he has to make himself feel better is go on the web and scream obscenities, or make physical threats to people who know more than he does.

Joe has his one size fits all reply "Evolution has no evidence!! that he clings to like a security blanket.

You show him paper after paper from the primary scientific literature and what is his inevitable retort?

"Evolution has no evidence!!

You ask to support his claims of errors or fraud in professional scientific work and what's his dodge?

"Evolution has no evidence!!

You ask him for his evidence of ID front loading, or the creationist created kinds he keeps pushing and what is his change-the-subject evasion?

"Evolution has no evidence!!

Yep, you almost have to feel sorry for Joe G. Almost, if he wasn't such an obnoxious jerk in the process.

I am curious as to who will bother to read it and who won't. Call it a Group Think test. Did anyone bother to double check what Dr. Hunter told you?

Here's a snippet...

"I think we have reason, sir. After all, computers have not always existed. The cave men with their stone axes, and railroads had no computers."

"And possibly they did not compute."

"Your know better than that. Even the building of a railroad or a ziggurat called for some computing, and that must have been without computers as we know them."

"Do you suggest they computed in the fashion you demonstrate?"

"Probably not. After all, this method - we call it 'graphitics,' by the way, from the old European word 'grapho,' meaning 'to write' - is developed from the computers themselves so it cannot have antedated them. Still, the cave men must have had some method, eh?"

"Lost arts! If you're going to talk about lost arts -"

"No, no. I'm not a lost-art enthusiast, though I don't say there may not be some. After all, man was eating grain before hydroponics, and if the primitives ate grain, they must have grown it in soil. What else could they have done?"

"I don't know, but I'll believe in soil-growing when I see someone grow grain in soil. And I'll believe in making fire by rubbing two pieces of flint together when I see that too."

Prosecutor: "We have fingerprints of the defendant at the scene of the crime."Joe: "Yeah, but you don't have any evidence that he did it."P: "We have DNA samples taken from the scene that links him directly to the crime."Joe: "If that's true they why aren't you providing any evidence of it?"P: "We have several witnesses that saw him there at the time of the crime."Joe: "Without evidence you'll never be able to prove he did it."P: "We have a security camera video showing him committing the crime."Joe: "And yet still you refuse to produce any evidence."P: "We have a signed confession from him that includes precise details of the crime. Details that only the guilty individual could possibly know."Joe: "Then provide some kind of evidence. Any evidence. Any evidence whatsoever."From across the court room: "Hey man, seriously, I did it. I murdered that person."Joe: "Yeah? Then how come there isn't any evidence of that, huh?"

The trial is incomplete because the investigate has chosen to "restrict itself to naturalism and maintain realism." The prosecution has clearly excluded other interpretations, like that a demon did it, and without leaving a trace has planted all evidence and compelled the confession.

We have clearly failed the accused with the incompleteness of methodological naturalism, and must acquit!

In short, incompleteness is an admitted feature of methodological naturalism we can and do live with (NOMA).

Joe G: Lederberg experiment- demonstrated that the variation that offered resistance was already present when the antibiotic was introduced.

That's right! But it wasn't there before. It's a mutation. The experiment shows that the mutation occurs regardless of the environment; hence, it is uncorrelated with the environment, as opposed to being in response to the environment. Other experiments show that the rate of mutation is consistent with the background rate of mutation.

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."- Charles Darwin 6th edition of "On the Origins of Species"

You do realize that only evotards bring up a rough draft of a book- and I produced a published copy!

JoeG states:"Not if you read the publisher's and authors' explanation."

I don't find any of that convincing in the slightest.

An early draft was called Biology and Creation, which became Biology and Origins which became Of Pandas and People.

The timing of all of these changes, including replacing the word 'creation' with 'intelligent design' and 'creationist' with 'design proponent' is rather suspicious, as it simply followed the 1987 supreme court ruling.

JoeG also says:"And BTW don't try to hide the fact that it is uncomfortable to evotards that Darwin used the word "Creator" in a published version of his book.

Your evasion of it proves it is..."

I couldn't care less. Darwin said a lot of things. A lot of them were wrong.

More importantly, Origin is not an atheistic (nor a theistic) text. It is a science text. There is no reason for anyone to be uncomfortable with the word Creator, a word used in much scientific writing of the time.

The timing of all of these changes, including replacing the word 'creation' with 'intelligent design' and 'creationist' with 'design proponent' is rather suspicious, as it simply followed the 1987 supreme court ruling.

I don't find it convincing because they fail to provide a plausible reason why they would have replaced certain words with others. Failing an actual explanation it is clear that the words are interchangable, and and clear that this was an attempt to circumvent the 1987 ruling.

Whatever dude- you are going to believe whatever you want.

That is not a meaningful response. I will believe whatever is most plausible.

LOL! Joe's still crying because Intelligent Design Creationism lost miserably at Dover. Dembski made a cowardly excuse to not testify, Behe made himself look like an incompetent boob, Fuller waved his hands and tried to clean up the mess the other IDiots made but couldn't, Mennich made Behe look like a genius in comparison, two creationists who funded the book got caught perjuring themselves. And then there's the always hilarious "cdesign proponetsists" transitional.

After that pitiful showing by the IDiots the judge's correct ruling surprised absolutely no one. There hasn't been such a one sided stomping since Bambi Meets Godzilla.

IDC has since been relegated to the dustbin of history. All that's left are a few miserable websites (like UncommonlyDense) hanging on out of sheer inertia. The Creationists have moved on and are now actively seeking their next dishonest ruse to sneak their religious anti-science dreck into public school classrooms.

ID and its brainless supporters like Joe G are now just the butt of a bad joke, only they're too stupid to realize it.

"Also, Joe G, please refrain from using language such as Evotard. It is hardly constructive."====

I totally agree Paul, it adds nothing of worth to the discussion. But do you ever slam gang members from your side for exactly the same thing ??? Here are some police action posts by Cornelius warning both sides:

Cornelius:"Joe, Troy:

Clean it up guys. No more junk please."

AND

Cornelius"Thorton:

Asterisks don't get you a free pass. Cut the language."

AND

Cornelius:"Ambiorix: Please cut the language."

At the very least be consistant and call it both ways. This is what makes the subject boring and nonsensical to continue with. Ultimately it's up to Cornelius to police this junk, but moderating seems to have been lacking lately and the usual trash-talking Neanderthal posters have been emboldened by it. Still the junk is coming from both sides.

Eocene says:"I totally agree Paul, it adds nothing of worth to the discussion. But do you ever slam gang members from your side for exactly the same thing ???

To be quite clear, I don't agree with such attacks from anyone. I simply addressed my comments to Joe G because he was using words such as "evotard" in a discussion with me, and addressed at me.

Yes, people on both sides here use equally pointless insults with free abandon. Between themselves, I suppose they set their own tone, unless/until moderated by CH. There is probably little point getting involved in someone else's discussion simply to point out that the language is unhelpful.

"Ultimately it's up to Cornelius to police this junk, but moderating seems to have been lacking lately and the usual trash-talking Neanderthal posters have been emboldened by it. Still the junk is coming from both sides.

"Here is a portion of a documentary called "Lights Camera Blasphemy that analysis that movie, clip by clip, along side newspaper clips and accounts. Well worth your time to take a peek I think."====

Technically by definition Dan, science is not supposed to be about anyone's religious metaphysical worldviews infused where explanations fail. It's supposed to be neutral without the faith-based conjecture, assumptions, assertions and speculations of either philosophies of creationism OR evolutionism.

===Cornelius, what a hoot! Forfeit realism? Wow! Like you mean, "the tooth fairy did it,"? ===

Not exactly. Forfeiting realism means you consciously decide, in the interest of completeness (as in Descartes' case) or in the interest of method (such as naturalism), to go beyond where you can guarantee realism in your results.

Your apparent failure to understand the issue is typical of evolutionists.

Zachriel: It shows that the mutation is uncorrelated with exposure to the environment.

Joe G: It doesn't do that for the reasons already provided.

You haven't provided any reasons. You've just said so. The Lederberg Experiment shows that the mutation for antibiotic resistance occurs regardless of the environment. It is uncorrelated with the environment. You may also want to look at the Luria–Delbrück experiment, which used statistical means to show that the resistance is explained by the occurrence of a constant rate of random mutations.

Joe G: {Origin of Species} isn't a science text.

Darwin and Wallace's original paper was presented before the Linnean Society in 1858. The Theory of Evolution is certainly considered a valid scientific theory. When your argument depends on the position that it's not, then the vast majority of readers will rightly reject your view.

Not exactly. Forfeiting realism means you consciously decide, in the interest of completeness (as in Descartes' case) or in the interest of method (such as naturalism), to go beyond where you can guarantee realism in your results.

Still waiting for you to explain how to do repeatable science when you have to allow for supernatural entities changing experimental results on a whim.

How do you ever trust the results? What is gained by adding your supernatural oogity boogity?

Early Drafts Of Pandas Did Not In Fact Advocate Creationism As It Has Been Defined By The Supreme Court.

"While certain early drafts of Pandas and other writings may have used the terms “creation” and “creationists,” it is clear that these terms were defined to mean something quite different from “creationism” as later defined by the Supreme Court. As noted earlier, from the beginning Pandas specifically rejected the view that science could detect whether the intelligent cause identified was supernatural. Although the process by which an intelligent agent produces a designed object can loosely be called a “creation” (as in stating that this brief was the “creation” of several lawyers), the authors of Pandas clearly understood that this was a “placeholder” for a more sophisticated expression of this concept. A pre-Edwards draft from early 1987 emphatically stated that “observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural. This is not a question that science can answer.” The same early draft rejected the eighteenth century design argument from William Paley because it illegitimately tried “to extrapolate to the supernatural” from the empirical data of science. Paley was wrong because “there is no basis in uniform experience for going from nature to the supernatural, for inferring an unobserved supernatural cause from an observed effect.” Similarly, another early draft (also from when the manuscript was still titled “Biology and Origins”) stated: "[T]here are two things about which we cannot learn through uniform sensory experience. One is the supernatural, and so to teach it in science classes would be out of place . . . [S]cience can identify an intellect, but is powerless to tell us if that intellect is within the universe or beyond it." By unequivocally affirming that the empirical evidence of science “cannot tell us if the intellect behind [the information in life] was natural or supernatural” it should be clear that the early drafts of Pandas meant something very different by “creation” than did the Supreme Court in Edwards. The decision to use the term “intelligent design” in the final draft to express the emerging theory of origins was not an attempt to evade a court decision, as Plaintiffs have alleged, but rather to furnish a more precise description of the emerging scientific theory."

That is a better and more valid explanation than anything the ToE has to offer...

The Lederberg and Luria–Delbrück experiments do not really rule out adaptive/directed mutation because they were using a lethal selection and therefore the system did not really allow for a long period of time for the mutations after selection to arise. The Cairns experiment showed that some unusual results occurred if you used a non lethal selection.

thorton: Still waiting for you to explain how to do repeatable science when you have to allow for supernatural entities changing experimental results on a whim.

Umm your position doesn't have any repeatable science.

Every research paper published has a Methods section so anyone can repeat the work and check the results. If we're studying a one-time even like the Cambrian explosion we don't have to recreate the event itself. We only have to be able to repeat tests done on the evidence left by the event.

But that's science 101, so I wouldn't expect you to understand it JoeTard.

Joe G: if their communiv=cation led to the mutation then the environment was partly responsible.

There is no communication between plates.

Espagnat: The Lederberg and Luria–Delbrück experiments do not really rule out adaptive/directed mutation because they were using a lethal selection and therefore the system did not really allow for a long period of time for the mutations after selection to arise. The Cairns experiment showed that some unusual results occurred if you used a non lethal selection.

A lot of work has been done on verifying, extending and attempting to find holes in Luria–Delbrück. Cairns' results almost do not show directed mutation, but were due to selection for gene amplification and higher mutation rates. Those organisms that respond to stress have a selective advantage.

By the way, directed mutation, as it is used in this context, is non-teleological. It would falsify neo-darwinism, but not the basic theory.

Zachriel: Cairns' results almost do not show directed mutation, but were due to selection for gene amplification and higher mutation rates.

Yes, I like it that you use the word "almost" which indicates that you are open to the possibility that mutation can be directed.Officially, there are two quantum mechanical model of directed mutation.

Zachriel: By the way, directed mutation, as it is used in this context, is non-teleological. It would falsify neo-darwinism, but not the basic theory.

If we can experimentally prove that directed mutation is driven by quantum effects, the ongoing debate on the accurate interpretation of quantum mechanics will gain more prominence.There are eminent physicists who entertain the implication of the primacy of consciousness in these debates.

JoeG quotes:"As noted earlier, from the beginning Pandas specifically rejected the view that science could detect whether the intelligent cause identified was supernatural. Although the process by which an intelligent agent produces a designed object can loosely be called a “creation” (as in stating that this brief was the “creation” of several lawyers), the authors of Pandas clearly understood that this was a “placeholder” for a more sophisticated expression of this concept."

So, in this version of events, we are expected to believe that the authors effectively misused the term "creation", despite the connotations that they were all too aware of, simply because they lacked a more sophisticated way of saying what they really meant.

This apparently also confused the supplier, who listed the book under the category of "creation science". But of course, we are meant to believe that it is completely divorced from creation science on the say-so of those with the most vested interests in how the book is perceived.

"A pre-Edwards draft from early 1987 emphatically stated that “observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural. This is not a question that science can answer.”"

Right. Okay. Here we begin to find some of the problems with calling ID science. This is of course the other part of the thin veneer of ID covering a creationist centre. ID - apparently even in 1987 - defines its own research goals as a dead end. It literally cannot provide any details at all of its purported designer. It begins and ends with a design inference.

The problem is not small. After all, where does the design inference come from? In archaeology, we have known (human) designers who created artifacts using tools through processes that we understand and have evidence for. We can look at a bowl or a spear and have a good idea who made it. Contrarily, in ID, we have the proposal that certain aspects of biology are too complex for evolutionary processes and the supposition that anything that can be interpreted as information 'must' have a design origin, despite there being absolutely no known designer. We are further expected to believe that the signature of intelligence produced by this unknowable designer will match the signature produced by the one known source of intelligence - ourselves. And we are expected to be satistfied with this despite can apparently never knowing anything of the 'designer'. We are further expected to do so for DNA, when DNA contains arbitrary but absolutely not abstract information.

Ignoring these substantial problems, where does this leave us for the standing questions in biology? Can we interpret - for example - the latitudinal gradient in species richness using such knowledge? This is the oldest recognised pattern in ecology. There are latitudinal gradients in extinction, speciation, and even in rates of DNA sequence evolution. These follow gradients of climate such as AET. Such could be interpreted as part of a picture of a highly plausible, multidimensional explanation for species richness patterns, which would point to a natural and non-intelligent source. Yet, apparently, these must be meaningless patterns created by a cryptic designer for unknowable reasons.

Zachriel: However, there is always a possibility. Where are the results? Let us know your empirical findings when they become available.

Great, my purpose of posting here is to create awareness that directed mutation is plausible. In order to obtain the empirical findings we need sufficient funding for an interdisciplinary initiative and we are facing obstacles from people who do not believe that directed mutation is plausible.

"Great, my purpose of posting here is to create awareness that directed mutation is plausible. In order to obtain the empirical findings we need sufficient funding for an interdisciplinary initiative and we are facing obstacles from people who do not believe that directed mutation is plausible."======

You are dealing with some of the most die hard staunchest hardcore religious people the world has ever spawned. No amount of falsifications to their religious dogma of blind pointless undirected indifference is going to shake their blind "Faith-Based" comfortable bubble of a worldview.

That aside, here's a wonderful example of clear directedness with massive amounts of purpose and directed intent. Do I hear "Compensation Algorithms" ??? No copying error mistakes getting lucky here.

Espagnat: In order to obtain the empirical findings we need sufficient funding for an interdisciplinary initiative and we are facing obstacles from people who do not believe that directed mutation is plausible.

When Cairns published evidence suggesting directed mutation, it was followed by considerable research in an attempt to replicate and extend those results. It turned out that the anomaly had a simpler explanation, but there was no lack of investigation into directed mutation.

===Still waiting for you to explain how to do repeatable science when you have to allow for supernatural entities changing experimental results on a whim.

How do you ever trust the results? What is gained by adding your supernatural oogity boogity? ===

You don't have to allow for supernatural entities. Once again, you can maintain your favorite method (such as naturalism). All you need do is forfeit realism or completeness. So you have two options you can choose from, and maintain naturalism. Is that so difficult?

If you insist on maintaining all three as the evolutionists do, then you're outside of science. Understand?

Zachriel: When Cairns published evidence suggesting directed mutation, it was followed by considerable research in an attempt to replicate and extend those results. It turned out that the anomaly had a simpler explanation, but there was no lack of investigation into directed mutation.

From the perspective of quantum mechanics, there is a lack of investigation into directed mutation. Officially, there are two quantum mechanical model of directed mutation.

PAul:So, in this version of events, we are expected to believe that the authors effectively misused the term "creation", despite the connotations that they were all too aware of, simply because they lacked a more sophisticated way of saying what they really meant.

Whatever Paul.

If all you have is to call them a liar then you have nothing- and should say nothing- sound familiar?

"A pre-Edwards draft from early 1987 emphatically stated that “observable instances of information cannot tell us if the intellect behind them is natural or supernatural. This is not a question that science can answer.”"

Paul:Right. Okay. Here we begin to find some of the problems with calling ID science. This is of course the other part of the thin veneer of ID covering a creationist centre. ID - apparently even in 1987 - defines its own research goals as a dead end. It literally cannot provide any details at all of its purported designer. It begins and ends with a design inference.

LoL!!!

ID is about the DESIGN not the designer(s)!

And it is a dead-end just as archaeology, forensics and SETI are dead-ends.

Ya see paul, reality dictates that in the absence of direct observation or designer input, the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) is by studying the design in question.

That is how it is done in arachaeology and forensics and I am sure that is how SETI would go about it also.

Paul:The problem is not small.

It's a strawman.

Paul:Contrarily, in ID, we have the proposal that certain aspects of biology are too complex for evolutionary processes and the supposition that anything that can be interpreted as information 'must' have a design origin, despite there being absolutely no known designer.

Joe G says:"If all you have is to call them a liar then you have nothing- and should say nothing- sound familiar?"

I have discussed the reasons that make this version of events is difficult to believe - I have not simply called out "Liar!". I'm not sure why you think those things are equivalent.

"ID is about the DESIGN not the designer(s)!"

And, perhaps if you reread my comment you will see that I acknowledge this. It is however a problem. Design is a very specific thing to infer, and yet the designer is unknowable.

"And it is a dead-end just as archaeology, forensics and SETI are dead-ends."

Nonsense; again there is no equivalence here. Archaeology and forensics infer the actions of humans. From these inferences we can learn about past cultures and people's actions respectively. No such learning is possible with ID, and the initial inference is not the straightforward one from either of these other examples.

SETI probably is a dead end. It suffers the same problems as ID; it assumes that extraterrestrial life would communicate in a way we understand as intelligence, using means we can detect. And how successful has that been so far?

" the ONLY possible way to make any scientific determination about the designer(s) is by studying the design in question.

Which requires the ability to detect a design in the first place. From an unknowable designer. This is getting circular.

"That is how it is done in arachaeology and forensics"

Except that - again - the designers share a common intelligence with those studying their actions.

Finally: "ID does not say:

certain aspects of biology are too complex for evolutionary processes

Geez Paul you just don't know what you are talking about.

Yes it does. Irreducible complexity is the inference that if all components of a system are needed for it to function, then this degree of complexity cannot be explained via known evolutionary processes: mutations, natural selection and genetic drift.

Specified complexity (in DNA) is a similar argument, where components of a complex system are replaced by nucleotide bases.

These arguments are predicated on the assumed lack of a gradient of fitness. Chance calculations are made based on the random assemblage of nucleotides. Hence, it is argued that the signature of intelligence can be inferred. So yes, ID most certainly does say that.

Arguments of course go further into the realms of information theory, but DNA does not contain purely abstract information; codons relate physically to molecules with no need for an interpretative intelligence, and hence with no need to invoke an intelligence for their origin.

I know it will not scare them but I think it will give them a lot to think about. For ex. what is the solution to instant action across distance using strictly materialistic explanation? Every clever experiment for last hundred years comes up with strange results. As if we are not allowed to know the whole truth about reality. We are watching experiment setup and setup is "watching" us. Some physicists who also do philosophy are trying their explanations:

Cornelius G. Hunter is a graduate of the University of Illinois where
he earned a Ph.D. in Biophysics and Computational Biology. He is
Adjunct Professor at Biola University and author of the award-winning Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Hunter’s other books include Darwin’s Proof, and his newest book Science’s Blind Spot
(Baker/Brazos Press). Dr. Hunter's interest in the theory of evolution
involves the historical and theological, as well as scientific, aspects
of the theory. His website is http://www.darwins-god.blogspot.com/